Sunday, November 21, 2010

The Oscar charts are now fully updated for November. Peruse and report back! For any of you leaving for the holiday early Happy Thanksgiving!

Can The Way Back get a makeup nomfor all those wounds, sunburns and life-threatening health issues?

So here's a momentary giving of thanks: I'm truly grateful for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences no matter how often I grouse about their choices. The Oscar race is fun. Plain and simple.

Here is the prediction chart index...
I'd love some feedback on the male acting prizes, in particular. I don't think it's so clear yet in either category though we have two handfuls of "likely" players.

Gold Derby recently released a list of which screeners have arrived in the mail for voters. This is the first year I've been receiving them with regularity thanks to the BFCA membership but I have been mysteriously denied The Karate Kid. Hmmmm. You can add 127 Hours, Greenberg, Let Me In, Stone, Made in Dagenham, Inside Job and Black Swan to that list of movies that have gone out to voters. As usual the studios are cutting it close. Are all the studios hoping that theirs are the last films screened before voting? Voting for the BFCA, for example, kicks off on December 6th. That's but two weeks away.

I've yet to screen: Barney's Version, Biutiful, Black Swan, Burlesque, The Fighter, Frankie & Alice, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 1, How Do You Know, The King's Speech, The Illusionist, Love and Other Drugs, Rabbit Hole, Somewhere, The Town, The Tourist and True Grit. The list above will clue you in immediately as to why festival trips are so crucial. Otherwise you get months behind. So that's roughly 1 a day for me before voting. Can I do it?

It's more complicated than it sounds ...though these are good problems to have. (One mustn't bitch about having too many potentially good movies to see.) First one has to align the screenings -- I already had to cancel 2 of those 16 to see the 1 press screening of Burlesque. Now, this might seem like a foolish choice but it's CHER. So shut it, haters! Then there's the not so small matter of my actual life (not without boring uncinematic demands), plus the very not small matter of writing about the same movies (an even larger chunk of time), interviews (Tilda where are uuuuu?), plus the other 2010 movies like documentaries, foreign film submissions, random arthouse things (Claire Denis's White Material has opened. I must make time.) Thankfully after the BFCA voting I'll have another 3 weeks before my own hand-made awards show begins with which to fill in any holes. But in short: I-N-S-A-N-I-T-Y.

Most of the people in the awards game from journalists to bloggers to publicists to golden hopefuls won't be getting much sleep until late February. Here we go.

27 comments:

Something tells me Duvall is the weak link in the actor line up. He seems like the one who does well in the precursors only to land the snub for the big show, replaced by someone with more passionate supporters like Gosling or Giamatti.

As for supporting, ya got me. Outside of Rush and Bale that looks like it will be a mystery until the SAG nominations, at which point everyone will just predict the SAG 5.

I would really like to see Ruffalo make the cut ... he has also done some very fine acting jobs in the past.

I, too, am on the fence about Bale.Publicity on their own movies seems like part of the job description.

I love your two new entries in the Best Actor and Actress categories...Personally, I would not only nominate. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing Jennifer Lawrence win ... but I don't believe it will happen, even if nominated.

I'm glad you've come around to Andrew Garfield's chances. :D I think he might even stand to pick a major critics prize or two, along with much less likely people like John Hawkes or Vincent Cassell, since someone like Bale or Rush may seem too "Oscary" for groups with the so-called "dignity" like critics groups. Which should assure him the nomination, though I don't know if he'll beat Bale (and I say that as someone who really doesn't like Christian Bale as an actor).

Unfortunately, Bale and Rockwell may cancel each other out, or rather only one will be nominated. The roles have too much in common: New England/true story/extrovert/hyperactive/bad boy/beloved brother/prison. Superficial similarities, I know, but significant. I actually hope that only one of them gets Oscar nominated, because it could get ugly.

a) I'm not convinced about Duvall at all. I don't know why. Everyone kept talking about his film, but no one really loved the movie. I don't think critics will rally behind him in any major way, so that leaves the BFCA (sorry Nat, but I don't consider them a critics group the way I do the NY and LA gangs), the Golden Globes and the Guilds. The only thing keeping him in, in my mind, is the hugely amorphous state of the race

B) You should be worried about Ruffalo. He, like Peter Sarsgaard, will get in about twenty years after everyone remembers he's been great but for some reason (the sweat you refer to) doesn't get recognized. That, and I think you're way overestimating The Kid Stays in the Picture.

C) I hate one week qualifiers. Or more accurately, I hate films that have been doing the festival circuit (Blue Valentine, I'm looking at you) that then do the one week thing. That's utter crap. And that's the reason Gosling and Williams won't get oscar nominations (not that you're predicting it).

e) I'm very curious how the critics treat Eisenberg. Callow youth tends to get dropped in the leading actor category (Dicaprio, Titanic is the obvious example) but he was undeniably awesome. I don't think he'll get nominated, but if you asked me who I think will get nominated in his stead, I draw a blank (maybe Broadbent or Giammati?)

I don't know about Bridges. It's a Coen movie (which doesn't scream Acting noms) AND many Academy members may question a second nom for this role (In the history of male acting noms only Don Vito, Mr. Chips and Henry II can claim that honour.) Plus I think Duvall is gone. And Eisenberg? It doesn't look quite showy enough and he's a bit too young. Gosling's got the NC-17 working against him. At this point I'd say Giamatti, Broadbent and a three way toss-up between DiCaprio, Sturgess and Bardem.

a) why are you sorry? I've made it well known that i don't think of the BFCA that way either ;) there are too many columnists, pundits/talking heads, and infotainment journalists in the group for it to be a "critics" thing. I've never been shy about objecting to their "critics choice" awards moniker.

b) we'll see. i have always been worried about Ruffalo for the "sweat" reasons.

d) vera drake & topsy turvy are the reason i say this. Secrets & Lies disproves the theory but the weird response to happy-go-lucky and the dismissal of almost all the other films (which are mostly contemporary) leads me to believe this. just a theory.

@Arkaan & Volvagia -- Broadbent has no chance. The role is not showy at all, the raves have all gone to Manville and the women totally control the movie to the extent that he's practically a supporting player despite the movie taking place at his house ;)

Those pictures of film covers are the films that you have screeners for, correct? That's different from those that you're going to official screenings for? How does that all work? Are these BFCA screenings only, or Academy screenings that you as the "press" get into for free?

I'm really thinking Franco might not make it. The simple reason is how many people actually want to see 127 Hours? I want to, but my claustrophobia and acrophobia kick in during the trailer a bit too strong to justify seeing it in a venue where I can't press pause and walk away for a good while before continuing. It took me three weeks to watch Touching the Void for this very reason and a lot longer to recover. I'm not alone in just being turned off by the idea of the film, no matter how well executed. Franco could give the greatest performance in the history of film and miss out because people don't want to see the movie. If he does get in, I don't see him winning for this very reason.

I'm thinking Bardem might peak at the right time for a nomination, and Marky Mark might ride the wave of The Figher acting nominations to get in. I hold out hope that Eckhart will join Kidman and Wiest (and Mitchell) for big nomiations in Rabbit Hole, but I don't trust the release date for that kind of film.

These are just likelihood of nominations right? Do you really think The King's Speech is going to win three acting oscars, screenplay, and picture? In this kind of climate? I can't tell if the heat has cooled on The Social Network or not and it'll pick up by December with the Globes and critics, but all of that love for The King's Speech in wins seem unlikely to me.

Call me crazy but the scandal surrounding Blue Valentine may cause voters to rally behind the film which could lead to a nom for Gosling (sorry, Michelle, but your field's too crowded). Of course, that's only if Eisenberg gets shut out.

Franco's a lock no matter how the film performs financially, I think. I can also see Bardem taking Duvall's place if voters feel like adding some foreign flavor to the proceedings. They've been getting quite a lot of flack for the lack of ethnic roles recognized this awards season.

I want to say that there's no way Gosling is missing out - he and William are getting raves, but he even outdoes her a bit (so far). They've nominated him before and I think he's pretty respected in the industry. However, with Franco already locked up and Eisenberg also with a very good chance, would they really nominate three young actors?

Danielle -- i've seen BLUE VALENTINE and while the raves are warranted, it'll take it becoming a "cause" for it to be nominated. It's very very adult in tone and very micro-indie in feel (basically a duet) and very depressing.

Broadbent has no chance. The role is not showy at all, the raves have all gone to Manville and the women totally control the movie to the extent that he's practically a supporting player despite the movie taking place at his house ;)

LA LA LA I AM NOT LISTENING BROADBENT CAN GET NOMINATED LA LA LA

I know the logic. But he's very sympathetic, and I think the film will play very well with the older crowd (aka, AMPAS). Plus he's a former winner.... okay, I got nothing but hope.

I would love for Ruffalo to be nominated, but agree that he makes it look too easy. To be honest, I feel like Garfield has a similar problem: his role isn't super-showy and he also makes the performance seem pretty natural and "easy". As you've said before, you don't really see him sweat. Timberlake's role is more gimmicky and showy, and even Eisenberg has a prickly (and occasionally scene-stealing) character to work with.

1. The film, even for limited release, have a good response at box office even for the subject. Box office mojo:

"Great week again for "127 hours", which this week goes from 19 to 14 after exhibited in 86 halls. The average per copy ($ 8.472) is the best of the twenty most watched movies at the box office, with the exception of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I"."

2. There's coverage around the story. E!, EW, Scott Feinberg...3. Plus for his excellent turn in "Howl" with his excellent year.

I actually think Garfield has the meatier performance than Timberlake. The latter turns in a good performance for sure, but it's mostly rapid-pace talking (reconsider all of his scenes). Garfield gets the final blowout at the end of the movie and pretty much everyone I've met who's seen the movie wants to adopt Eduardo. I think Garfield will get in.

And Eisenberg is 27. That isn't too young at all (Gosling, Ledger, etc). The problem is that he just looks a lot younger.